Early Review of Mitchell Bard's Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's Against the Jews

Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's War Against the Jews by Mitchell G. Bard
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Mitchell Bard's Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's War Against the Jews, is an information packed history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. Bard makes the argument that Muslim states, particularly those who are radical will stop at nothing to see Jews wiped from the face of the Earth. I was gripped with the intensity with which the Israeli Jews fear for their lives.

The book is useful; I would have liked a few more sources, especially for those areas speaking against Israel's enemies. I know I can search online, but when I'm in the middle of a book, the last thing I want to do is to go online and get distracted while trying to find some piece of information that I expect to be in a book like this. Bard includes several sources, but there are a few places where he doesn't—and in those places they would do a lot to strengthen his side of the argument. As I pointed out, Bard includes a fair number of sources; a bibliography would facilitate the further study of these issues.

Bard argues that the conflict is at that bottom a religious one rather than a political one. It could be political using religion to carry our its ends. It wouldn't be the first time and that interpretation can be gathered from Bard's book.

I'm reminded while reading Death to the Infidels to try to look at both sides of the issue. When so much smoke and mirror propaganda and spin is being used by both sides of the issue, it's very difficult to know where to stand. From my view, which is not in the thick of it, I can see that both sides have done atrocious things to the other; that many people: soldiers, as well as non-military fighters, as well as civilians not involved in the fighting—innocent men, women, and children have died in this conflict that goes on for so long that media in the West stops covering because it's no longer news.

My heart breaks for the Israeli Jews who just want a homeland and it breaks for the Palestinians who want the same thing. It breaks for all those who are caught in the middle of this religio-political melee.

It's difficult to read/research both sides because each side has its own suffering and each side has its spin-doctors. I tend to agree with what Daniel Gilbert writes in Stumbling on Happiness, “When pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewers [of news] are shown identical samples of Middle East news coverage, both proponents claim that the fact clearly show that the press was biased against their side” (168). They also claim that the other side started it. Gilbert later writes: “Alas, the only thing these facts clearly show is that people tend to see what they want to see” (168, emphasis in original). Bard has made it easier to see the Jewish side, and the fear that keeps the Israelis from giving in to the demands of the Palestinians.

According to Bard, every time the Israelis have given an inch, the Palestinians have taken a mile and have continued to bring terror in the form of firing rockets and suicide bombings. He makes the point, however, that when Israel fires back in defense, they are reprimanded by other nations. It's also interesting that each side claims that the West, especially the U.S. is aiding the other side: the Palestinians say that the U.S. helps Israel; Israel says the U.S. helps Palestine. Books like Bard's are important; he's not afraid to go against the current “politically correct” flow and to tell it like he sees it. He pulls no punches in saying that those who want Israel's and especially the Jews' demise are not moderate and radical, but should rather be called radical and more radical. He quotes (with sources) several who call for the decimation/annihilation of the Jews even if it takes centuries. Because of the lengths to which these radicals are willing to go, Bard argues, Jews and Israel have a long, hard road ahead of the them.

Bard covers a lot of information in a short book, and all of it is important. Read this if you're interested in this heart-wrenching conflict that has cost so many lives and will cost many more before it's over, if it will /can ever be over. I for one hope (probably foolishly) that Bard is wrong, even a little. Alas, it's not very likely: just look at the new escalation that is in the news right now (18 July 2014).

NOTE: This book is due to be published in September 2014.

View all my reviews

Early Review of Richard Jackson's Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel

Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel by Richard Jackson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Advanced Reader's Copy Review:

The night I began reading Richard Jackson's Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel, I didn't stop before finishing a third of it, it was difficult to put it down. Part of this is the style, it is written in the format of a Top Secret transcription of an audio or video recording of an interrogation of a MI5 agent and a terrorist/militant. There are no chapter breaks, so it's easy to just keep right on reading and the content makes it hard to simply close it and put it down.

Jackson, with this novel, seeks to shake up his readers' preconceptions and notions concerning those labeled as terrorists by the media. That seems to be one of his few aims: to show that those so quickly tagged as terrorists are human beings, having people they love, who love them; and who want people to hear them. Jackson writes: “I have rarely found artistic or media depictions of terrorists that seemed authentic or which corresponded to the completely normal, often intelligent, complex and committed people I had personally spoken to” (319). He presents the terrorist in this light; i.e. the opposite of the way they are usually presented in films and the media.

The author wants to put the readers in the room during the interrogation, to help them ask tough questions. Jackson lives up to his goal, stated on the jacket copy, to blur the line between the interrogator and the terrorist. There are passages that could catch readers nodding their heads in agreement and then, catch them feeling a twinge of guilt for doing so.

I read that it is in the style of Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist. I agree with that in that it is a story that takes place in an intense conversation between two characters: one a Westerner, the other a suspected terrorist. There the similarity breaks down. Jackson's novel is presented as a trascript (as I've already stated), with anotations by those higher up the chain of command; annotations that the fictional authority writes to convince others to expunge parts of the recording and the transcription to cover their collective backsides. Jackson recommends those who are inclined, should try to find as much information as they can, and to talk to militants, if possible.

If you enjoyed The Reluctant Fundamentalist, or are interested in a different perspective view on the issue of terrorists and their behavior, I highly recommend this novel. The author writes, “A novel like this is a small step, but a necessary one, to tearing down the veil of ignorance which currently lies over most of what we currently say and do about terrorism” (322). He also includes a suggested reading list for those interested in knocking down that “veil of ignorance.” I plan to re-read this novel, and to work my way through Jackson's "Recommended Reading" list on terrorism and terrorists.

View all my reviews

Get the Kindle version, here (the hardcopy is due out 3 June 2014):
Confessions of a Terrorist

Free Speech is Illegal, Now?

Saw a rather disquieting thing this A.M. on Facebook and felt compelled to look into it because my bullshit meter was cranked all the way up and screaming.

The headline: "NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS FELONY,ARE YOU AWAKE YET AMERICA?"

I watched the video, in which the newscaster mentions the name of this LAW: H.R. 347.

So, here's what I found out:

• This is old "news" from 2011
• It was openly passed by the Senate
• It is not as bad as these guys are making it out to be
• It applies to certain areas at certain times

The following was found on ACLU's blog (you know if anyone is keeping an eye on this kind of thing, it is them, right?):

H.R. 347, the 'Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,' expanded the Secret Service's authority to regulate protests in and around areas where persons under Secret Service protection are located. It could be abused to interfere with lawful protest.

It could be doesn't mean it will be or that it has been. This is just another ploy to slander the President, just like the birth certificate fiasco. Anyway, it would be scary to lose the right to protest, but the President doesn't have that kind of dictatorial power. Another article on the ACLU blog, dated 8 March 2012, states: "The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment."  You should read the rest of that article, if you haven't already;  but a couple of important excerpts are called for:

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures. 

AND

H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

So, there really is not anything to get worked up about, is there? But, please, remember to check this kind of "IN SECRET," conspiracy theory stuff before scaring our pants off with it. Thank you in advance.

One of the first places I look when I even barely doubt the veracity of an issue is http://www.snopes.com. They discuss the origins of the fallacy in this way:

In February 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent (as HR 247) approved by the House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 399-3; the bill was then signed into law by President Obama.

It is an update to 18 USc 1752 - Restricted Building and Grounds, from 1971.

Another excellent source to check these things out is FactCheck.org. Especially if it is political in nature.
Here is the pertinent article, relating to this blog-post.

Think About It

If I Was a Prayin' Man

If I was a praying man, I would spend this day on my knees crying out to whatever divinities there may be; my petitions, like incense before the altar, without ceasing, would rise up to the very nostrils of the gods.

What would be the theme of my prayers?  What would be the cry of my heart?

Gott im Himmel, pleeeeease let Obama win this election, for the sake of our children and our children's children; for the sake of all the women who will be in bondage to cruel, unforgiving laws in regards to their own bodies; for the sake of this fragile planet which we call home; and for the sake of my sanity, because, frankly, that Romney guy gives me the creeps.
Amen.

But.... since I am not a praying man, I will just ask all of you that read this, if it's not too late, please think about the long-term outcome of this election; not just the next four to eight years, but on into the future.  Please, think about any women in your life, including your wife, daughter(s), mother, sister(s) and friends: think about how the Republicans' plan will basically plunge us into a near Middle Ages as concerns women and how they are treated; they really should be allowed to make their own decisions when it comes to their own bodies.  Please, don't let the rhetoric against Obama make you choose poorly; and Romney is a poor choice.

Am I saying Obama is the best President in the history of the United States?  No.  But, I am saying that he deserves another four years to finish the plans he started, and to clean up the mess that was left us from the Bush administration.  Also, I am saying that we should not go backwards, by choosing another president after the order of W.

Peace!  I'm going to vote!

Please, Think About It

WHY?

This whole thing has really become a pain in my ass.  Occupy Wall Street began as a cry for equality, a call to the government that the disparity between the very wealthy and the very poor was too great; that our country is going to Hell on a fast train of economic fucked-up-edness!  Well, now OWS has decided to screw with people's (not only the 1%'s) livelihoods.

In a previous post I talked about this not making much sense, and it still doesn't.  It is even more fucked up: the occupiers have taken over and closed certain ports on the West Coast of the U.S.  Why?  What good can come of holding people's stuff in a containers?  It does NOT matter whose stuff it is.  Also, I would like to know how this is helping the economy, how this is helping the jobless, how this is bring equality.  How is making all the longshoremen leave work helpful?  Are they getting paid to go home?  According the Huffington Post article to which I have linked above:

Union officials say longshoremen were not paid after Occupy Oakland protesters blockaded the port Nov. 2.

DeAndre Whitten, 48, an Oakland longshoreman for 12 years, said it was his understanding he would be losing about $500 in pay for the day. But he said he supported the protest effort.

"I'm excited. It was way overdue. I hope they keep it up," Whitten said. "I have no problem with it. But my wife wasn't happy about it." (emphasis mine)

Of course his wife wouldn't be happy.  She probably has to pay the bills and shop for groceries.  I wouldn't be happy, either, in that situation.  $500 is a lot of money for those in the 99%, right?  If you say it isn't, then you are not actually part of the 99% and have no reason to bitch and moan about the state of affairs in this country, do you?  How can these longshoremen support their families if THEIR jobs are in jeopardy?  Are the longshoremen who have jobs not part of the 99%?  Then, how in Hell is keeping them from work helping?  Shit!  From the same Huffington Post article:

"This is joke. What are they protesting?" Christian Vega, 32, who sat in his truck carrying a load of recycled paper from Pittsburg said Monday morning. He said the delay was costing him $600.

"It only hurts me and the other drivers. We have jobs and families to support and feed. Most of them don't," Vega said.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan also urged protesters to consider the impact on port workers.

"Thousands of people work at the Port of Oakland every day. Thousands more in agriculture and other industries also depend on the Port of Oakland for their daily wages," Quan said. (again, emphasis mine)

One protester stated that they were trying to make things better for them (the workers, farmers, etc.), as if this were the Communist Revolution and he were Lenin or something.  Losing $500 or $600 would do me NO good, would it you?  If so, I'll give you my address and you can send me a check post haste.

And the containers on the ships, what of those?  For example, if a family is moving from Hawaii to the mainland, will their belongings be held up until these people, who don't really know what they want, decide to let them go?  Or people in certain parts of Alaska that require shipments from outside: will they get their food, their clothing, or whatever else they might need?  

The occupiers do not want the government in their business, yet they want the government in rich peoples' business, which in the long run will require the government to be in the business of the occupiers themselves.  How can there be equality if no one knows who has what?  How do the occupiers propose this equality be reached?  Magically?  The only way their "demands" can be met is by implementing big government, giving up financial privacy and re-working the entire government and financial sectors of our country.  What are the solutions?  Shit, I'm tired of hearing about the problems.  I know the fucking problems.  How do we fix those problems?

I agree that something has to be done in this country, yet I can't agree that this is that something.  There are too many unanswered questions and too many agendas and too many voices.  The occupiers are not one voice.  Some want this, some that.  Nothing can be done with that kind of chaos; at least nothing worth rallying about.

What will they get up to next?  A little wet work with the guillotine, perhaps?

Here is a great perspective on this whole thing by Bernie Glassman (also on Huffington Post):  Arising to the Interconnectedness of Life? A Buddhist Perspective on the Occupy Movement

UPDATE: This is an awesome open letter.  An Open Letter from America’s Port Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports

I may not be all the way with OWS, but I can appreciate when the hard-working people speak up about the necessity of change.  

300 is not about 300

“... for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
~ William Shakespeare Hamlet 2.2.251

The movie 300, as well as the graphic novel upon which it was based, is not necessarily a historically accurate portrayal of the events they represent.  That is not the point.

The point is plain now that Frank Miller has been candid in a recent blog post.  300 is about the colonizer, the big government, the oppressor—fill in the blank with whatever strong-over-the-weak, rich-over-the-poor, or my-political-agenda-over-yours ideology that you want—gaining their objective.

Sadly, I think most people interpreted the movie, whether deliberately or unintentionally, as the fight of right against wrong, or good against evil (which is of course one way Miller meant it to be interpreted; his idea being that the Persians represent Islam and Islam is wrong, right?).  That’s how I initially read it (minus the Islam is the enemy idea): the small Spartan army of 300 men went bravely to stand against the massive army of the oppressor Xerxes.  Yeah, I know many did read it as being about America against the rise of, as Miller calls it, “Islamicism” (which I’m pretty sure isn’t even a word, but nevermind …).

In a previous post, Miller wrote, “We only complain about propaganda when we don’t agree with it.”  Of course.  Why would we complain about something that promotes our own agenda?  Why would be try to shoot down something that makes sense to our worldview?  So, anyway, we know that Miller is writing/drawing propaganda because he says he is.  Which is fine, because that is what many people are doing, in their own way.  Propaganda is closely linked with agenda: so the mainstream media who are owned and operated by large corporations; the marketing departments of the large corporations, and their advertising—it all is propaganda for each of their respective ideas or products--the things that will fulfill their agenda(s).

Now, we have occupiers who are using the latest and greatest technology, which is developed and sold by large corporations.  Some blatant examples: Apple, Facebook, Twitter.  I am not singling these corporations out from personal malice, they are simply the ones that come to mind, being used by people who I know are involved in OWS.  The occupiers are focusing on the banks and financial institutions.  Why?  Without their having bought the latest gadget, there would be no finance to worry about.  They are overlooking the objects in their hands; they are overlooking the clothes on their backs, the shoes on the their feet.  They want things to change, but they want things to stay the same.  It seems that they want to eat the cake they didn't bake.  They are at once using and condemning the very things they would not want to be without.  This is what confuses me about it.  It reminds me of the Russian revolution, when women who left their villages to work in the cities did not want to return to their villages without having purchased a particular type of coat, called a sak (a status symbol).¹  Today, it is the latest iWhatever that is that coat....  This is contradictory and contrapurposive to the entire ideology being propagated by OWS, right?

It seems that OWS is calling for socialism, or maybe even its extreme form communism.  While many others want something closer to fascism.  I know the labels for these ideas are getting tossed around ad nauseam these days (along with Nazi), and that most who use them are not really solid on what they are saying.  Others are trying for anarchy.  Still others would have the US continue to focus huge amounts of resources into the war against terrorism—which is about as successful as the war on drugs, right?²

I’m not an anarchist, a communist, a socialist or a fascist.  Hell, I barely even register on a political ideological scale at all.  This ramble is not to promote one form of political idea over another; this ramble is my way of working through all this shit and trying to make some kind of sense of it.  I’m not jumping into any of these ideologies, because none of them make sense to me. 

Yes, equality would be nice.  But, are we willing to let the government have the power necessary to maintain that kind of equality?  Privacy would be nice, but are we willing to let those who mean us harm free and open access to us, so that they might then bring a new form of inequality and oppression?  I don't think we really know what we want, and until we do, our united-ness will continue to polarize until the US is no longer recognizable.  Wait!  That shit is already happening, isn't it?

I guess my thinking is swayed by Buddhist thought, i.e. looking for the middle path.  But, I’m not a Buddhist, either….

---

^1.

"Women saved because you could not live without a sak. Those who did not have a sak felt they were deprived of their full rights, not fully valued, on the slide. There were endless conversations among the women workers about buying a sak. And if they bought one, they wrote to the village at once, to tell everyone that teh long-desired sak had been purchased." Mikhail Isakovskii, quoted in S. A. Smith, Revolution and the People in Russia and China: A Comparative History, 94.
MY NOTE: it seems that this, along with what I've written above speaks of a sense of entitlement which is prevalent in our time.

^2.